Magic Items

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Simple question, should magic items be a player resource or a DM resource?

Obviously this poll is posted in response to the change from being almost entirely a player resource (via Enchant Magic Item ritual) to a hybrid Player/DM resource with the new rarity system.

 

[Ryujin]

Magic items are a player resource, under DM control

 

[AngryMojo]

I'd say with a few exceptions, like artifacts and the new "rare" magic items, as well as story-based items, the PC's should entirely be in charge. As a DM, I'm too busy focusing on making a good story and making interesting characters, as well as controlling an entire world. Every bit of mechanics I can delegate to my players is a little bit more time for me to focus on what matters.
Truth be told, if I could put monetary rewards in the hands of the PC's as well, I would. You tell me what kind of art/gems/coins you find. It's X gp worth.

 

[samursus]

Before seeing it in practice (I didn't really play 3/3.5e) I would have said it would nice as a player resource (I am a DM mainly). But after seeing it in action with my 4e game, I might as well just go back to what I have always done...dole out the magic goodies. My player's would not make up wishlists, and we never had anyone ever buy/enchant a magic item.

Plus, I will admit I miss random tables

 

[Mengu]

Magic item properties occupy the wrong design space. They should not be part of magic items. They should be traits. For instance instead of finding a flaming weapon, the tiefling paladin learns to bathe his sword in flames. Instead of the halfling sorcerer finding a goblin totem dagger, he learns to dish out more damage to enemies larger than him. These are traits, not magic item properties. They relate to the character and work with an aspect of the character. They could be worked into the system as such, gaining a trait every X levels, corresponding to the different slots we are used to such as weapon, armor, waist, hand, etc. (they could either be a mapped progression or a looser progression).

Once that's fixed, items become a DM resource. Once you stop building based on items (since traits are now based on builds), all the DM needs to decide is what kind of daily or encounter powers he wants to give the PC's through items. These are non-crucial resources, and typically you don't build a character around one daily power of an item (if you do, that item probably needs some examination). These also give power for a DM over the kind of solutions he wants to make available to the PC's. Does he need to give extra daily healing resources? Does he need to provide a once per encounter or day mobility boost to someone? He won't have to worry about, oh I can't give somebody winged bracers because their arm slot is taken up by some stupid iron band.

Currently items are a player resource because they enhance player abilities. The system needs a significant overhaul to make it a DM resource, which I don't want to say is necessarily better, but personally I would enjoy it more both as DM and as player.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Personally I am a fan of the inherent bonus and prefer the magic items to be artifacts and stuff with interesting powers. Not alway obvious combat powers either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If items are going to be 'defining' they should be a player resource, because players should be the ones defining their characters. If items are not powerful enough to be 'defining' they don't /need/ to be a DM resource, because they probably won't be a balance issue.

 

[keterys]

If items are going to be 'defining' they should be a player resource, because players should be the ones defining their characters.

Define 'defining' For example, does it 'define' if one paladin gets a +5 holy avenger and the other gets a +5 bradaman's and some other minor item that makes up the difference in level?

If items are not powerful enough to be 'defining' they don't /need/ to be a DM resource, because they probably won't be a balance issue.

There's a big difference between a single item being either defining or a balance issue, and the collective total of ten or more, though.

If one druid has claw gloves, iron armbands, horned helm, and an earthfall totem and another has much... less focused and effective items... that's druid A with average charge of 1d8+1d10+2d6+8 (avg 25) and druid B with... 1d8+6 (avg 10.5), which is a purty big darn deal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Define 'defining' For example, does it 'define' if one paladin gets a +5 holy avenger and the other gets a +5 bradaman's and some other minor item that makes up the difference in level?

It doesn't really matter where you set the bar for 'defining,' if items are defining a character, it makes a lot of sense for the player to be picking the items, since they've become more important than his race, class, feats, or power choices. I think it would take a /very/ powerful item (or set of items) to really 'define' a 4e character, since they have so many interesting powers, and a fair degree of customizeability. Certain Essentials builds would be easier to 'define' with an item, since they have less interesting/varied class abilities.

There's a big difference between a single item being either defining or a balance issue, and the collective total of ten or more, though.

I don't think so. The same issue remains. Unless it's a balance problem, it shouldn't be a DM problem; and, if it's 'character-defining,' it should be in the hands of the player.

If something (again, single item or collection) is /both/ 'defining' and a 'balance problem,' it probably shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[Ryujin]

Define 'defining' For example, does it 'define' if one paladin gets a +5 holy avenger and the other gets a +5 bradaman's and some other minor item that makes up the difference in level?

There's a big difference between a single item being either defining or a balance issue, and the collective total of ten or more, though.

If one druid has claw gloves, iron armbands, horned helm, and an earthfall totem and another has much... less focused and effective items... that's druid A with average charge of 1d8+1d10+2d6+8 (avg 25) and druid B with... 1d8+6 (avg 10.5), which is a purty big darn deal.

Defining, as in key to character concept perhaps?

Right now I'm tinkering with the idea of taking the 2nd level Bard I'm playing and running him towards the Master of Flame Paragon Path, with a flaming scimitar as the signature weapon. The character concept is currently a Changeling who was adopted by the Court of the Summer Fey (though pretty much as a pet) when his clan was killed by Drow; aspiring to be one of the elite, who saved him.